LANSING, Mich. – The Michigan legislature is considering a proposal that would limit the amount of lottery prize money residents who get welfare, Medicaid or food stamps could win to more than $600, the Lottery Post reports. The bill stipulates that any money over $600 won by such a person would be funneled into the state School Aid Fund, which receives any unclaimed lottery money.

State Reps. Tom McMillin, Jim Stamas, David Agema and Pete Lund sponsored the bill. “The lottery is a bad gamble for a lot of people,” said McMillin, who introduced the bill. “Some people play it for recreation. One too many times, I saw people standing in line who appeared to be poor and they were buying tons of lottery tickets.”

Some retailers support the bill. Najib Kakos, owner of Buscemi’s/Beverage Barrel, sells lottery tickets, but said he’s in favor of the bill. “We have family members that own businesses in the Detroit area, primarily in really poor neighborhoods,” he said. “Their lottery sales are unbelievable compared to ours. If you’re barely making it, you shouldn't be gambling. … The money should be used for food and shelter. It doesn't matter if it hurts our sales — it's about doing what's right.”

Excellent. An idea I've espoused here on this forum. Needs to be suggested for North Carolina.

At first, I was like "fug yeah, those welfare fugers shouldn't be GAMBLING!".

But after thinking about it a bit... this is fuging terrible legislation... it's like trying to put out a oil fire with water.

Why? Well....

It's institutionalized poverty enforcement.

In other words, Michigan's State Government is saying "We'll help you stay poor by giving you a meager welfare check, but we won't allow you to gamble and strike it rich."

In my mind, there's no difference between, say, a rich-ass Doctor winning the lottery, and an unemployed person winning the lottery, except the unemployed person needs that money more. Why would the state make that distinction?

Now, I know the knee-jerk answer is "to keep people from spending welfare money on gambling."

First off, this isn't going to work. People will just find other ways to gamble if they are addicted to it.

But more importantly, this is a flawed concept to try and fix a flawed system. If the administrators and legislators of the welfare system was so concerned about WHAT the welfare money is being spent on, they would stop writing checks to people, and instead directly PAY for things like rent, electricity, interior gas bills, clothes.

And that's the crux of the problem. Our welfare system is too easily abused. FIX THAT. Don't prevent some legit down-on-their luck schmoe, who got laid-off and is having a hell of a time trying to find a job, from being able to get out of that hole because he spent $5 on a lottery ticket and won big.

At first, I was like "fug yeah, those welfare fugers shouldn't be GAMBLING!".

But after thinking about it a bit... this is fuging terrible legislation... it's like trying to put out a oil fire with water.

Why? Well....

It's institutionalized poverty enforcement.

In other words, Michigan's State Government is saying "We'll help you stay poor by giving you a meager welfare check, but we won't allow you to gamble and strike it rich."

In my mind, there's no difference between, say, a rich-ass Doctor winning the lottery, and an unemployed person winning the lottery, except the unemployed person needs that money more. Why would the state make that distinction?

Now, I know the knee-jerk answer is "to keep people from spending welfare money on gambling."

First off, this isn't going to work. People will just find other ways to gamble if they are addicted to it.

But more importantly, this is a flawed concept to try and fix a flawed system. If the administrators and legislators of the welfare system was so concerned about WHAT the welfare money is being spent on, they would stop writing checks to people, and instead directly PAY for things like rent, electricity, interior gas bills, clothes.

And that's the crux of the problem. Our welfare system is too easily abused. FIX THAT. Don't prevent some legit down-on-their luck schmoe, who got laid-off and is having a hell of a time trying to find a job, from being able to get out of that hole because he spent $5 on a lottery ticket and won big.

If you're taking in government money or live in subsidized housing, aka welfare, zero of your discretionary income should be going to the lottery. It should be going to children, food, shelter.

As far as the comparison on who's more deserving to win it...I don't care. I don't care if it's a doctor. I don't care if it's someone recently unemployed. I DO care if my tax money is going to subsidize someone's who chooses to spend their extra moolah on lottery tickets.

If you're taking in government money or live in subsidized housing, aka welfare, zero of your discretionary income should be going to the lottery. It should be going to children, food, shelter.

As far as the comparison on who's more deserving to win it...I don't care. I don't care if it's a doctor. I don't care if it's someone recently unemployed. I DO care if my tax money is going to subsidize someone's who chooses to spend their extra moolah on lottery tickets.

So, does that person deserve a Snickers every once in a while, or are you going to police that spending? What's appropriate for them to spend money on and what's not? I understand your sentiment, but it's carrying it just a little bit too far, I think.

They aren't talking about $1 wins...they're talking large winnings. For instance, NC right now will garnish your winnings if you owe taxes, child support, etc. Same dealio should occur if you owe money you've taken from the government.